A Republican bill with 2 Democratic cosponsors · See all 3 cosponsors
Last activity — Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
In the other chamber's committee
Passed one chamber and has been handed to a committee in the other.
The committee decides whether it goes any further, and most bills that reach a committee never leave it. A committee that simply does nothing kills a bill without anyone ever voting against it, so no news from here is usually the news.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- Passed House voice vote
- In Senate committee
The House by voice vote (members called out yes or no together): no member's position on it was recorded.
What this bill would do
This bill is known as the Battery Recycling for America's Competitive Economy Act or the BRACE Act. It focuses on supporting the recycling and recovery of lithium-ion batteries. The bill sets interim requirements for destination facilities that store lithium-ion batteries before recycling them. It also requires the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to issue a new rule regarding the management of lithium-ion batteries as universal waste within 18 months of the bill's enactment. Finally, the legislation makes technical updates to the Mercury-Containing and Rechargeable Battery Management Act.
Yes· 3 of 10
- Scored +4
Does this better protect air, water and wildlife?
The bill promotes proper end-of-life management for hazardous batteries, reducing landfill pollution.
- Scored +3
Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change?
Supporting lithium-ion battery recycling facilitates the green energy transition and reduces mining impact.
- Scored +3
Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power?
Battery recovery is essential for the scaling of electric vehicles and renewable energy storage.
The opposite
- Scored -2
Would business owners be better off under this?
Destination facility owners face increased regulatory compliance costs.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
- Section 2(c) requires the Administrator to issue a rule specifically tailored for lithium-ion batteries, which could help support the recycling of these batteries and the recovery of critical minerals while keeping health and environmental protections in place.
- Section 2(c)(2)(D) instructs the Administrator to consider adding additional safety requirements to address gaps in existing protections, which may benefit public safety.
Potential Negative Impacts for People
- Based on the provided text, there are no explicitly mentioned negative consequences or burdens for individuals or groups of people in the United States.
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this better protect air, water and wildlife? — The bill promotes proper end-of-life management for hazardous batteries, reducing landfill pollution. Does this put more money into wind, solar and other renewable power? — Battery recovery is essential for the scaling of electric vehicles and renewable energy storage. Does this cut the pollution that drives climate change? — Supporting lithium-ion battery recycling facilitates the green energy transition and reduces mining impact. Does this reduce how much oil, gas and coal is produced? — Indirectly supports a transition away from fossil fuels by bolstering battery ecosystems.
- Economy And Finance
- Is this likely to grow the economy? — Enhancing the recovery of critical materials like lithium supports a more competitive domestic economy. Is this likely to create jobs? — Support for battery recycling infrastructure may create specialized jobs in the recovery sector.
- National Security And Foreign Policy
- Does this make trade with other countries easier? — Increasing domestic lithium recovery can reduce dependence on foreign imports for critical minerals.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this give the federal government more power? — The bill mandates federal regulatory compliance for destination facilities.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would children be better off under this? — Positive long-term environmental impact benefits future generations. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Positive long-term environmental impact benefits future generations. Would business owners be better off under this? — Destination facility owners face increased regulatory compliance costs.
- 9/16/2026
- Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.
- 9/15/2026
- Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
- Passed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote.
- On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended Agreed to by voice vote. (text: CR H5678)
- DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate on H.R. 9615.
- Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H5678-5679)
- Mr. Guthrie moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
- 9/14/2026
- Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. H. Rept. 119-818.
- Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 717.
- 9/2/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/1/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/16/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 7/14/2026
- Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
- Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee by Voice Vote.
- 7/9/2026
- Referred to the Subcommittee on Environment.
- Referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce.
- Introduced in House
Diana HarshbargerRepublican · Tennessee
Robert MenendezDemocrat · New Jersey
Raul RuizDemocrat · California